There have been many Liberals posting here recently regarding pacifism and a need to address American policy yet none of you have presented a plan to handle this current situation. Even Proffie Peace and Love presents nothing in regards to what to do to stop this apparent flood of terrorism. I'd like to hear that plan to deal with this terrorism instead of the continued debating about war being a bad idea.
Hear, hear. And don't post any crap about our foreign policy and it being our fault because of sanctions posed on Iraq. If you have an actual plan on how to deal with this situation, then let us hear it, minus the hypothetical philosophy and the Blame Game.
Well howdy to you guys too. BTW, I'm glad that we get to chase each other to different threads. It makes for a spiritful debate. The BBS isn't just a place to interact w/ other people! It's a maze too! Yeehoo! Timing, could you give an example of some of the 'liberal' threads that you're discussing? I think many of us, BGM, haven, glynch, rm95, fdkhan, puedlfor, etc. etc. (there's a lot in that 'etc' so no offense...) have merely attempted to calm the tide. We've all read posts that contain so much hate. We also seek to understand the huge "why???" running through our heads. Not one of us has sought to insult the people that have passed. As far as not offering solutions... I can't allow myself to ponder that right now. I must mourn. I cannot contemplate violence right now. Leave me at peace. I have a problem w/ rage, so please understand that I cannot let myself speak in anger right now. Besides, I'll leave the 'solutions' to the government. I suck as a fantasy gm; I'm certainly not going to play fantasy Charles Bronson.
I consider myself a liberal to some extent and I supported Al Gore in the last election, but I don't know what you are talking about here. I'd hate to kill innocent people, but I think Afghanistan and the majority of its neighbors should be up in smoke by now. There's about ten countries that have played a role in this, either now or in the past. Why are we still investigating? Who cares who did it really? We know who's done this crap in the past and we know who is a threat to do it in the future so it's time to go after them.
Good to see we're back to stereotyping liberals and conservatives. BTW, in general, liberals are no more hawkish or dovish than anyone else.
Here is an edited repost from a prior thread initated by getting branded entitled "why war may not be effective What to do? From one liberal's perspective. 1)Find out who did this. 2) Basically develop a plan to bring them to justice in a way that won't make them martyrs or win further converts for the terrorist cause. This is tactically wise. 3) Get international support as Bush is doing. 4) Try if necessary for months to get Bin Lauden and his network, if he is the culprit extradited for trial. Failing this go and arrest him with the minimum force necessary. Note the loss of American and other life should be given priority , not any feel good, or any short term political goals. Spending time to spare lives is moral. 5) If taken alive, put the terrorists on trial at the Hague along with Milosevic. It is more appropriate to treat them as criminals against humnity . It doesn't glorify them. 6) Withdraw all US troops from Saudi which insults many religious Arabs. Stop oppressing Arabs for cheap oil. 8) Immediate lift the economic sanctions against Iraq. Stop killing children in Iraq and "Wagging the Dog" bombing. Declare victory and leave. 9) Start an emergency plan for energy independence with solar and conseration etc.. This is the moral equivalent of war and it should receive near blank check funding. Once the demand for oil goes down the Arabs will have to come to us to a certain extent. You can't eat or drink oil. We also will not have to fight wars or base our foreigh policy on oil access. 10) Take back Bush's tax cut to the rich or start a lot of deficit spending and begin a Marshal plan to develop those parts of the Middle East and the third world that act responsibly. This could include post Sadam Hussein Iraq. Increased wealth makes people more moderate. 12) Stop the irrational backing of Israel. If they want to continually fight their neighbors over a few square miles of Jerusalem and additonal West Bank settlements, they have to do it on their dime. No more UN vetoes for them, which just generate hatred toward us and allow them to feel less isolated in their intransigience. 13) Start acting more responsible at the United Nations and blocking conferences on racism, land mines, global warming. massive transfer of resources from North to South etc.. Quit trying to bully the World and insist that we have to have our way or we just won't play. Pay all our UN dues. Such responsible good neigbor policies will increase our popularity with both frineds and neighbors. 14)Cease all development of the Star Wars boondoggle that bullies the rest of the world. It bankrupts us when we need the money for international development and oil independence etc. It makes us feel like we dont have to negotiate diferences. In conclusion: bring the criminals to justice with at least some surprising compassion, seek international support. Accept that the Arabs and many other peoples outside our borders have many valid complaints and address them. Repeat past successes with the Marshal Plan and Japan rebuilding. These will allow us to capitalalize on the generally good will our "way of life" and cultural exports have generated, instead of being negating that good will with unfortunate shortsighted foreign policies. Report this post to
glynch (and gettingbranded), what do you propose we do when Iraq then again invades Kuwait and possibly continues on into other Middle Eastern countries? Leaving the ME is an extraordinarily simplistic plan that really doesn't consider the numerous reasons we have a presence there in the first place.
You are seriously asking me where the liberal threads are? LOL I recall within a few hours of these attacks FDKhan was already in full second guess mode, questioning the US policy that led to these attacks to the point where he seemed to insinuate that "we had it coming". Oh, by the way, he's since said he is Muslim which is not surprising considering his early comments. I've read haven questioning the same policies for the last few days and he even had the nerve to equate patriotism with single minded brainwashing. Of course he won't answer the question of what it would take for him to go to war nor will he answer the question of what to do to stop terrorism. Clearly he'd rather hide in his textbooks second guessing the past than face the real world at work. I'm reading the Glynch, a self-professed draft dodging liberal, post all kinds of nonsense from a journalism professor, trying to give endless reasons for why war is wrong. Yet none of these people have presented their plan to stop terrorism. This is quite obviously the monday morning quarterback version of liberalism in action. I have simply asked for the liberal solution to this crisis since it seems a lot of self-professed liberals here would rather talk endlessly about the reasons behind the attack and second guess US policy instead of planning the current course of action to prevent further attacks.
<B>I have simply asked for the liberal solution to this crisis since it seems a lot of self-professed liberals here would rather talk endlessly about the reasons behind the attack and second guess US policy instead of planning the current course of action to prevent further attacks.</B> I can't speak for those people, but I would assume a major portion of their solution is to rethink US policy in a way that -- in their mind -- doesn't piss off as many people. I think everyone would agree that we should capture bin Laden and try or simply eliminate him.
Do people have better things to do with their life then to come on here and rip into people for being "liberal" and calling people draft dodging "liberal"? I'm a "liberal" and I support what the U.S. is doing so why are you making blanket statements about people? This is getting tired.
Rocks that is what he said he was in a previous post. I didn't simply say that out of the blue. Sorry if you were insulted by it but it was simply a repetition of something he said. 4) Try if necessary for months to get Bin Lauden and his network, if he is the culprit extradited for trial. Failing this go and arrest him with the minimum force necessary. Note the loss of American and other life should be given priority , not any feel good, or any short term political goals. Spending time to spare lives is moral. Honestly, this is kind of funny. The US has been trying for years to get bin Laden and his network. He's been on America's 10 most wanted for a loooong time. Now all of a sudden we're just going to do that? 6) Withdraw all US troops from Saudi which insults many religious Arabs. Stop oppressing Arabs for cheap oil. US troops are there with the invitation of the Saudi government. You know, the people who actually run that country. There are no US troops in the middle east where they have not been invited. Allowing terrorists to dictate American military objectives is obviously a bad idea and would lead to more such action in other parts of the world. 8) Immediate lift the economic sanctions against Iraq. Stop killing children in Iraq and "Wagging the Dog" bombing. Declare victory and leave. Iraq is still in violation of the peace agreement they signed to end the Gulf War. They expelled UN inspectors years ago, have continued efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and have continued to be in violation of the no fly zone which they also agreed to. It seems you'd just like to let everyone off with a free pass. 9) Start an emergency plan for energy independence with solar and conseration etc.. This is the moral equivalent of war and it should receive near blank check funding. Once the demand for oil goes down the Arabs will have to come to us to a certain extent. You can't eat or drink oil. We also will not have to fight wars or base our foreigh policy on oil access. This would be more costly than any war we could ever fight, not to mention highly unrealistic in present conditions. 10) Take back Bush's tax cut to the rich or start a lot of deficit spending and begin a Marshal plan to develop those parts of the Middle East and the third world that act responsibly. This could include post Sadam Hussein Iraq. Increased wealth makes people more moderate. You want to take more American dollars and give it away to nations that have some of the worst human rights violations in the world. We are not the world and we should not support the world. This would give precedent to other nations. Attack us with enough terrorists and we'll support you if you're poor. After all, we just want to get along! 12) Stop the irrational backing of Israel. If they want to continually fight their neighbors over a few square miles of Jerusalem and additonal West Bank settlements, they have to do it on their dime. No more UN vetoes for them, which just generate hatred toward us and allow them to feel less isolated in their intransigience. So stop backing our ONE solid ally in the middle east? That's not exactly wise. 13) Start acting more responsible at the United Nations and blocking conferences on racism, land mines, global warming. massive transfer of resources from North to South etc.. Quit trying to bully the World and insist that we have to have our way or we just won't play. Pay all our UN dues. Such responsible good neigbor policies will increase our popularity with both frineds and neighbors. I don't know where this comes from. The US is possibly the most responsible nation on the face of the Earth. The UN would not exist without American support. It seems you want us to be more of a world Mother Theresa than a responsible government. You're basically acquiescing to the demands of every terrorist alive in every part of the world. In essence rewarding terrorism and spiting many very serious American interests around the world.
glynch- I think that's a great post- is it yours? Alright, I'm a peace-loving liberal, and here's what I would like to happen. It may be extremely similar to the previous, but Timing wants responses, so here we go. - Do an incredibly thorough investigation giving as much evidence/proof linking the culprit to the crime. So far, it would appear this is what is happening. Make this information available to whatever nations demand it- Afghanistan, the UN, whoever. Vary the sensitive-intelligence information in the document for those who shouldn't see it, or only giving the full document to government agencies who can see it. Do not give anybody a chance to say we are going on a hasty witch-hunt for revenge. - Use diplomatic pressure as much as possible first. If Bin Laden is the culprit, and is still hiding in Afghanistan, use international pressure, particularly and especially whatever arab nations will cooperate, to fork over Bin Laden and any other proven culprits. Try avenues of international pressure rather than just the threat of our superior force. Show the terrorists that this is not just some campaign of 'Satan' America. If it is indeed Afghanistan, it would appear from statements already given by the Taliban govt. that they will not be cooperative. Try anyway. Give them the chance to say 'we were wrong, terrorism is wrong, here's your man, we never liked him anyway, we promise we won't do it again.' Exhaust avenues of diplomacy before coming to the next step. - Hunt and capture (if possible) those who are responsible. Involve as few innocent lives of X war-torn impoverished country as possible. If it is Bin Laden, I hope and pray that he indeed will be imbedded in the mountains far from any highly populated area, allowing us to engage without loss of innocent life. If the Taliban (if hypothetically it is Bin Laden) use force to interfere (they probably will), crush the opposition army with a combination of land and air force rather than blanket bomb attacks in civilian areas. When the culprits are found, kill the bastards in battle if you must, but capture would be better- as stated in the previous posts, allowing them to martyr themselves would only serve their cause and inspire future terrorists. - If successfully captured, bring the culprits to a world court for judgement. Again, make it clear that their crimes are against humanity, and all the world. If the terrorists thrive on a hateful us vs. them mindset, make it clear that the "them" isn't just Israel/America- it's the rest of the friggin' world. Give terrorist factions no room to just blame everything on America by involving the world court. - If we have waged war with a nation(s) that harbored our culprit, after using whatever necessary force to convince our opponent that negotiations are in order, (i.e. after kicking their asses) make the future harboring of any known terrorist an axial agreement.
By the way, Shanna is right on- what many posters on this board are talking about is how this entire frigging mess could have been avoided in the first place with smarter foreign policy. Talking about the cause, talking about prevention. Talking about ways to a future with less death and warfare; a way which usually involves actions and at least policies of compassion. Timing, you took a lot of time to fundamentally disagree with almost everything in glynch's post- your thoroughness suggests you didn't find something to deconstruct/complain about in his first few points, which addressed the question that you started this thread with. Care to comment on it, or (gasp) agree with it? Furthermore, If I were to respond as much as I'd like, I would spend most of my time responding to the ridiculous hateful snippets that come out of people's mouths. I found Dadakota's title thread 'carve up the Middle East!' disgusting. And Timing, your comment in that same thread about turning a nation that harbors terrorists into a 'parking lot' churns my stomach. If the tragedy of 9/11 can't teach you respect for innocent life, what will? And as for Israel: "So stop backing our ONE solid ally in the middle east? That's not exactly wise." Uh, I imagine they like being allies with us due to the billions of dollars we give them. I think any friggin' country in the world that got that kind of $$ from us would be a 'solid ally.' They should play nice and stop treating their neighbors like sub-humans. Holding back some of the absolutely ridiculous amount of cash we give them is not out of the question.
They were an ally first. I am certainly not always in agreement with what Israel does, but until 'sub-humans' will allow your own country to exist, I don't see how you expect them to make peace. It would seem that a unilateral peace does not work well for one side. Withhold cash for peace is fine, but how will you get the PLO to insure their security?
Cohen- If the PLO still won't be peaceful after concessions by Israel, does that mean we should still give billions in support and military aid to an ally committing human rights atrocities, because hey, there won't be peace anyway, why bother? Furthermore, this maneuver would serve a far more important function in fighting future terrorism, by taking away the reasons extremist fundamentalist Muslims hate America. You could kill every damned anti-Israel/America terrorist out there and there would be twice as many right behind them, if we don't address their motivation. Like DaDakota said, get to the roots of the tree and kill it (something like that.) Of course, such a move may be impossible now, because then it would seem we were bowing to the will of cowardly murderers. God, the tragic irony.
Nolen, Unfortunately, it is hard to distinguish human right atrocities from defense and retribution when the other side attacks. If you have an ally fighting for its very existence, you don't retract all of your support. The Palestinian cause would have been much better served if they had listened to Gandhi and gone the way of non-violence. Israel would have been forced into an agreement a long time ago. Personally, I think that closing schools and businesses in the occupied territories is absolutely the most idiotic thing that you can do. These are critical to the development of a friendly neighbor and ultimately close economic ties (it would have only made sense). As it is, they probably created more pissed-off youths w/o a bright future. As you stated, such a move is impossible, both now and before. You don't strand an ally for whatever reason suits your own best interests, particularly when it is simply to cave-in to extremists. I don't think that this maneuver will take away extremists. Remember, they don't just hate us for Israel, they hate us for what we represent. They hate us for our lifestyle and excesses. How we defile their holy lands. We will not just have to abandon Israel, but also Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and every other moderate Arab nation that relies on us for stability in the region. Do you think that these countries or the rest of the world wants us to leave the Middle East? I don't believe so.
Back to liberals, I am entertained by some liberals' claims of being more empathetic (at least one such claim was made on this board). I had a firend from Berkley who was very liberal. Until she was mugged one day on the way to work in Oakland and almost lost an eye. After that, she wanted to 'lock'em-up and throw-away-the-key'. I came to the realization that the distinction seems to be that liberals like her empathize better with the criminal, while conservatives empathize better with the victim. For 'these' type of liberals, empathize all you want with the terrorists, but stay away from me. I use all of my energies empathizing with the innocent victims.
<B>I came to the realization that the distinction seems to be that liberals like her empathize better with the criminal, while conservatives empathize better with the victim. </B> I recently came to the realization that conservatives have a serious problem with stereotyping entire groups of people, such as liberals.
I know you are only speaking of certain kinds here...but are there really any people, of whatever political ideology, that are empathizing with the terrorists? I think the obvious answer is, "no" and that you are just trying to be dramatic. What is the point?
Honestly, Shanna, I though of you when I added 'liberals like her'. Also, you apparently made an assumption that I am a conservative. I consider myself a fiscal conservative only, so you will should modify your response. Regardless of our semantics, am I mistaken that liberals, in general, are considered softer on crime? What alternative implication then, makes sense when you have both a criminal and a victim?
